Thomas: The club president had no right to disallow Jeffrey’s vote. Club rules say that only members in good standing may vote. You’ve admitted that club rules also say that all members whose dues are fully paid are members in good standing. And since, as the records indicate, Jeffrey has always paid his dues on time, clearly the president acted in violation of club rules.
Althea: By that reasoning my two-year-old niece can legally vote in next month’s national election since she is a citizen of this country, and only citizens can legally vote in national elections.
The reasoning in Thomas’ argument is flawed because his argument
(A)
fails to take into account the distinction between something not being prohibited and its being authorized - CORRECT. Is it(good standing) the only way that someone's eligible to vote. If not than there might be another parameter for voting rights. And this is where the argument lacks a punch.
(B) offers evidence that casts doubt on the
character of the club president and thereby ignores the question of voting eligibility - WRONG. Plain wrong. Scope irrelevant.
(C) wrongly assumes that if a statement is not actually denied by someone, that
statement must be regarded as true - WRONG. Okay if it regarded so then what. Irrelevant at best.
(D) does not specify the
issue with respect to which the disputed vote was cast - WRONG. What is done is done but after that some conclusion is made and why so. Scope shift.
(E) overlooks the
possibility that Althea is not an authority on the club’s rules - WRONG. At first, Althea's role is altogether ambiguous here. Anyway, his/her authority is not impacting Thomas' conclusion. Why is it made in a way it is is the question?
Answer A.